{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2009-04-27", "page": 1, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nCOMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES\nMEETING MINUTES OF\nApril 27, 2009\nTIME\nThe meeting convened at 7:01 P.M.\nPRESENT\nChair Lord-Hausman, Vice-Chair Moore, Commissioners Berger, Fort, Longley-\nCook and Krongold.\nABSENT\nCommissioner Kirola\nMINUTES\nThe March 23, 2009 minutes were approved with corrections.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nThere were no written communications.\nNEW BUSINESS\nThere was no new business.\nOLD BUSINESS\n1.\nSpecial Needs-Special Services Resource Fair (Commissioner Krongold):\nSecretary Akil informed the CDI that an off-agenda memo was sent to the City Council\nregarding the Special Needs-Special Services Resource Fair and a letter was sent to the Mayor\nrequesting a fee-waiver for use of the D'Club.\nCommissioner Krongold asked what is the process for approval of the fee waiver to which\nSecretary Akil stated the Mayor will respond to the request via letter and suggested that Chair\nLord-Hausman follow up with the Mayor's Secretary.\nCommissioner Krongold distributed the draft registration form and letter which will be mailed\nto the list of participants proposed by the CDI. The CDI made some minor changes to the draft\ndocuments. Secretary Akil agreed to place the City Seal on the letter and provide copying and\ndistribution services for the CDI. The actual mailing will be done by the CDI and workgroup.\nCommissioner Berger discussed some accessibility and shuttle concerns regarding the O'Club\nsite at Alameda Point. She stated that all shuttle services should be available at both the east\nand west end, and near a bus stop. Chair Lord-Hausman stated that the shuttle stops should\ninclude Harbor Bay, Towne Centre, Mastick and either Independence Plaza or Mariner Square\nfor the west end stop. Chair Lord-Hausman requested that Commissioner Krongold check with", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2009-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2009-04-27", "page": 2, "text": "Commission on Disability Issues\nApril 27, 2009\nMinutes\nPage 2 of 2\nJackie Krause, Mastick Senior Center, regarding suggested shuttle locations.\nCommissioner Krongold stated that the next workgroup meeting is May 11 and requested that\nthe notice of the Fair be placed on the City's webpage under \"Upcoming Events.\"\n2.\nCommission Disability Internet Webpage (Chair Lord-Hausman/Secretary Akil):\nThis item is on hold due to on-going funding and budgeting issues.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\nThere was no staff communications.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS/NON-AGENDA ITEMS\n1.\nCommissioner Berger informed the CDI that her term is expiring on June 30th and that she\nwill not renew. She suggested that the CDI could go back to meeting at 6:30 P.M. and that\nthe CDI should also consider a name change to Commission on Accessibility Issues.\nCommissioner Krongold responded that the word disability should stay in the name.\nSecretary Akil stated that the Bylaws reference the word disability throughout that document\nwhich would require review if the Commission name was changed.\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that she met an able-bodied individual who was not comfortable\nwith the word disability because she was not disabled and the term makes her think that she\nwould not be qualified to apply for the Commission. Chair Lord-Hausman requested that this\nitem be placed on the next agenda for discussion.\n2.\nChair Lord-Hausman stated that she did not attend the PAPCO meeting.\n3.\nChair Lord-Hausman asked if the CDI should invite Art Kurrasch, Chair of the Housing\nCommission to a CDI meeting to discuss ways the CDI and Housing Commission could work\ntogether, to which the CDI agreed. Chair Lord-Hausman will follow up with Mr. Kurrasch.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is Monday, July 27, 2009 at 7:00\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLucretia Akil\nBoard Secretary\nG:\\Lucretia)CommDisability\\Minutes(2009\\Minutes_April 27 2009.doc", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2009-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2009-04-27", "page": 1, "text": "OF\nof\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING\nOF THE\nPENSION BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA\nHELD 4:30 P.M., APRIL 27, 2009\nALAMEDA CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE, ALAMEDA\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391\n1.\nThe meeting was called to order by Acting Chair William Soderlund at 4:35 p.m.\n2.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent: Acting Chair William Soderlund, Trustees: Robert Follrath, Nancy\nElzig, and Karen Willis. Absent: Trustee Beverly Johnson\nStaff: Glenda Jay, Interim Finance Director and Lelia Faapouli, Administrative\nTechnician, Human Resources.\n3.\nMINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 26, 2009 were\nmoved for approval by Member Follrath and seconded by Member Elzig. Passed\n4-0.\nA motion to accept modification to Agenda Item 5B on the minutes of the Regular\nMeeting of October 27, 2008 was made by Member Follrath and seconded by\nMember Willis. Passed 4-0.\n4.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n4-A. PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2009:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 203,979.72 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.\nb.\nIn the amount of $ 3,516.67 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.\n4-B. PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2009:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 203,979.72 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.\nb.\nIn the amount of $ 3,516.67 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.", "path": "PensionBoard/2009-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2009-04-27", "page": 2, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, April 27, 2009\nPage 2\n4-C. PENSION PAYROLL FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2009:\na.\nIn the amount of $ 216,415.70 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1079, N.S.\nb.\nIn the amount of $ 3,516.67 for the members under\nPension Ordinance No. 1082, N.S.\nMember Elzig moved to adopt the consent calendar, seconded by Member Follrath.\nPassed 4-0\n5.\nAGENDA ITEMS:\n5-A.\nThe Interim Finance Director's Financial Report for City of Alameda Police\nand Fire Pension Funds for the period ending March 31, 2009 was\naccepted as presented. Member Follrath moved to approve, seconded by\nMember Elzig. Passed 4-0\n5-B.\nMemo from Human Resources Director notifying of death of 1079\nPensioners, Evelyn Lenehan, widow of Fire Apparatus Operator William\nLenehan, and Roberta Orem, widow of Fire Captain Ray Orem, was\naccepted with regrets on a motion by Member Elzig and seconded by\nMember Follrath. Passed 4-0.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no oral communications.\n7.\nPENSION BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD)\nActing Chair Soderlund welcomed the new Interim Finance Director, Glenda Jay,\nto the Pension Board meeting.\n8.\nADJOURNMENT:\nThere being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was\nadjourned at 4:40 p.m.", "path": "PensionBoard/2009-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PensionBoard", "date": "2009-04-27", "page": 3, "text": "City of Alameda\nMinutes of the Regular Meeting of the\nPension Board - Monday, April 27, 2009\nPage 3\nRespectfully submitted,\nKaren Willis, Human Resources Director\nand Secretary to the Pension Board", "path": "PensionBoard/2009-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-04-27", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING\nMONDAY, APRIL 27, 2009\nCOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM\nPresident Kohlstrand called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.\nFLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member McNamara\nROLL CALL:\nPRESENT:\nPresident Kohlstrand, Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft\nBoard members Autorino, Cunningham, Cook, and\nLynch were present upon roll call.\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nAndrew\nThomas,\nPlanning\nServices\nManager/Secretary to the Planning Board; Assistant\nCity Attorney Mohammed Hill, Planner Douglas\nGarrison,\nNancy\nMcPeak,\nExecutive\nAssistant/Recording Secretary\nMINUTES:\nMinutes from the meeting of March 9, 2009\nContinued to the meeting of May 11, 2009\nMinutes from the meeting of March 23, 2009\nContinued to the meeting of May 11, 2009\n5.\nAGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nStaff requested continuance of Items 9A and 9B to a future meeting date to correct the\nad language and issue a corrected notice to the neighbors.\nBoard members requested that Item 8A be moved from the consent calendar to a\nregular item 9A.\n6.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\nWritten Report\n6-A. Future Agendas\nStaff provided an update on upcoming Planning Board agenda items.\n6-B Zoning Administrator Report\nAt the Zoning Administrator meeting of April 7, , 2009 the Zoning Administrator referred\nAgenda items 9A and 9B items to the Planning Board for review.\nPage 1 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-04-27", "page": 2, "text": "At the Zoning Administrator meeting of April 21, 2009 the Zoning Administrator\napproved a Variance for 555 Haight Street and the Use Permit for the Farmer's Market\nat Webster Street.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\n*\nAnyone may address the Board on a topic not on the agenda under this item by\nsubmitting a speaker's information slip, subject to the 5-minute time limit.\nNONE\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nConsent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or\nadopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or\nexplanation is received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by\nsubmitting a speaker slip for that item.\n8-B. Zoning Amendment - PLN08-0491 - 550 Park Street. The applicant requests\nrezoning the property to permit a 24-foot maximum building height, with a 10-foot\nfront yard setback and a 40-foot year yard setback for the second story. The\ncurrent Zoning standard requires a 20-foot front yard setback and a 15-foot\nmaximum building height. The Planning Board will be making a recommendation\nto the City Council on the proposed rezoning. (DB)\nThe applicant is requesting a continuance of this item to a future meeting\ndate. The item will be re-noticed.\n8-C. Technical Amendments to the Community Improvement Plans for the\nBusiness and Waterfront Improvement Project and the West End\nCommunity Improvement Project - Applicant - City of Alameda. The City of\nAlameda Planning Board will consider the recommendations of the Community\nImprovement Commission and Economic Development Committee to amend the\nCommunity Improvement Plans for the Business and Waterfront Improvement\nProject (BWIP) and West End Community Improvement Project (WECIP). The\nadopted 2003 fifth and fourth amendments to the BWIP and WECIP plans,\nrespectively, merged the BWIP and WECIP areas and their required tax\nincrement dollar limit, plus created the Exchange Area. The Exchange Area,\npreviously a part of the Alameda Point Improvement Area, was added to BWIP\nin the fifth amendment. The proposed ninth and seventh amendments to the\nBWIP and WECIP plans, respectively, will clarify that the tax increment dollar\nlimit, which applies to all plans and amendments adopted prior to January 1,\n1994, is applicable to the original BWIP and WECIP areas but not to the\nExchange Area. (JJ-DSD)\nBoard member Cunningham moved/Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the\nmotion to approve the consent items. The motion carried 7-0.\n9.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\nPage 2 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-04-27", "page": 3, "text": "8-A.\nBay Friendly Landscaping Ordinance - Applicant - City of Alameda. The\nPlanning Board will consider a proposed Alameda Municipal Code amendment\nrelated to creation of a Civic Bay Friendly Landscaping Ordinance requiring\nsustainable landscaping practices for City and public-private partnership projects\nor renovations that equal or exceed $100,000 in construction costs. (DV).\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft voiced concerns that the proposed ordinance is not\ntailored to the needs of the island community and requested an amendment to the\nordinance. The amendment is at the end of the paragraph at Section 30-60.1: and to\nincorporate green infrastructure technologies wherever possible including, but not\nlimited to green grids, street edge alternatives and green alleys.\" at the end of the\nparagraph and to amend the definition session accordingly.\nBoard member Lynch asked for clarification why this ordinance is limited to city-owned\nand public-private partnerships as opposed to all projects.\nStaff explained that the City had taken the direction to first impose any 'green'\nordinances on itself first, to show leadership, and to then reach out to the larger\ncommunity and develop support for such ordinances.\nBoard member Lynch requested information on whether the threshold for projects that\ntrigger the ordinance ($100,000) would apply to cumulative project costs or per bid and\nhe requested an update on the efficiency of the ordinance in 12 months.\nStaff explained that the ordinance makes provisions for projects under $100,000 that\nthe intent of the ordinance be met, while projects over $100,000 would definitely meet\nthe ordinance and agreed to bring this back for an ordinance review in twelve months.\nBoard member Cunningham asked whether this ordinance is only triggered by\nlandscaping projects or also through projects that come in as building permits. He also\nasked why the ordinance only required that an applicant attain of 60 points, as opposed\nto requesting more points to improve the landscaping efficiency.\nStaff clarified that the ordinance is only triggered through the landscaping permits\nprocess and proposed to amend the ordinance as needed upon return in 12 months.\nBoard member Cook stated that the new ordinance should include language to help\nclarify the minimum requirements. To this end, she added that on page 5, 30-60.3A '\nall covered projects shall meet the most recent minimum Bay-friendly landscape points\nand complete the nine required best practices' should be included in the ordinance\nlanguage.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft moved as amended/Board member Lynch\nseconded the approval of the ordinance. The motion passed 7-0.\nPage 3 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-04-27", "page": 4, "text": "9-A.\nUse Permit - PLN09-0054 - 2217 South Shore Center - Trader Joe's. The\napplicant is requesting a use permit allowing deliveries to the store outside the\nhours of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. (LA)\nPresident Kohlstrand clarified that the projects 9A and 9B would be renoticed and that\nthe Planning Board would not make a decision on these projects, but would take public\ntestimony on both items.\nStaff presented information on both projects 9A and 9B.\nBoard member Cook asked how the present deliveries outside of the permitted hours of\ndeliveries were approved in the past.\nStaff clarified that these deliveries outside of the permitted hours for Alameda Towne\nCentre had not been approved and that all businesses had been placed on notice of the\nviolation and that they were instructed the required Use Permit.\nBoard member Autorino asked for clarification on the hours of operation for Trader Joe\nand Big 5.\nBoard member Cook clarified that the hours of operation for Trader Joe are from 9 am\nto 9 pm.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft asked whether there was round-the-clock staff present at\nboth stores to receive the deliveries during the off hours.\nD. Smith, Big 5 Sporting Goods, commented that their store had staff present to accept\ndeliveries during the non-business hours.\nB. James, Assistant Manager Trader Joe's, spoke on behalf of the company and their\nneed to have extended hours. He stated that Trader Joe's staff had met with neighbors,\nare aware of the neighbors' concerns about truck traffic, and that Trader Joe's had\nreduced the extended hours request from 24/7 to one hour on either end of the\npermitted business hours to meet the neighborhood's needs.\nM. O'Malley, Sales Captain Trader Joe's, also spoke on behalf of the company and\nstaff's continued effort to balance the store's needs and ensure workers' safety, while\nrespecting neighbors' noise concerns by quickly offloading any deliveries.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft asked whether the proposed extended hours would\naccommodate the business needs.\nM. O'Malley affirmed that small extra window of an hour on either end of the business\nhours, would allow the store to function.\nBoard member Cunningham asked if added staffing in the morning would be feasible.\nPage 4 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-04-27", "page": 5, "text": "M. O'Malley stated that they had already increased staffing for the morning shifts, but\nthat from a business standpoint, it would not be feasible to add additional staff for the 2\nhour window in which off-loading and restocking occurs.\nC. Healey commented that the businesses should move the delivery hours to the\nnormal business hours to lessen the impact of trucks in the residential areas and that\nthey should flex their staffing needs accordingly.\nM. Radding, representing Alameda Neighbors United, distributed letters from neighbors\nagainst the truck traffic and described the negative impacts of truck traffic. He\ncommented that truck traffic should be limited to normal business hours to reduce noise\nand improve quality of life for the residents of Alameda.\nH. Sellers stated that the truck survey conducted by the Alameda ATC security\ncompany was misleading, as the survey was started after the holiday season, when\ntruck traffic is naturally lower. She also pointed out that the Alameda Police Department\nhas been unable to enforce the current truck traffic limitations and allowing the\nproposed Use Permits would make it more difficult to ensure compliance. She\npresented a video depicting the truck traffic on the non-truck-route portion of Otis Drive.\nD. Radding, also representing Alameda Neighbors United, read sample quotes from the\nsubmitted letters and requested that the Planning Board deny the Use Permits.\nM. Corbitt, Alameda Towne Centre General Manager, spoke about the business'\neconomic viability that would be impacted by a restrictive delivery policy and the efforts\nthat have been undertaken to address neighbors' concerns.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft asked for clarification on the construction occurring in the\nalley way between Applebee's and Trader Joe's.\nM. Corbitt clarified the scope of work and timeline.\nPresident Kohlstrand closed the public comment portion.\nBoard member Autorino asked how the trucks are scheduled for delivery and asked\nwhether Big 5 would be able to deliver at a later time.\nB. James explained that they have pushed back the delivery time from 3 am to 7 pm,\nbut that it significantly impacts the truck drivers' time lines as they conduct linked\ndeliveries across California. They have asked for this Use Permit, as the City has\nplaced them on notice.\nPage 5 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-04-27", "page": 6, "text": "Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft asked why two delivery days would be required, opposed\nto only one day.\nB. James answered that two week deliveries are extremely rare, but that in the process\nof applying for this Use Permit, it was a prudent move on their part to ask for two days\njust to be covered.\nBoard member McNamara discussed the early delivery hours for Trader Joe in the\nearlier part of the year.\nO'Malley explained this issue.\nBoard member Lynch asked whether the Use Permits coming before the Planning\nBoard were initiated by the Alameda Police Department or Code Enforcement.\nStaff explained that the Use Permits are a result of enforcement action by Code\nEnforcement.\nPresident Kohlstrand closed the public comment period.\nBoard member Lynch discussed the difficulty of coordinating many different hours of\noperation for the various stores and cautioned against a piecemeal approach.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft recommended coming back to the next hearing with a\ncompromise between all those involved, that balances the needs of the neighborhood\nwith the traffic demand on the legally protected truck route, as well as maintaining the\neconomically viable center.\nBoard member Autorino stated that it appears that the enforcement of the hours of\noperation and truck delivery could be improved on.\nBoard member Cook would like the discussion at the next Planning Board meeting to\nfocus on the enforcement of delivery hours of the center.\nBoard member McNamara asked what the enforcement process is through Code\nEnforcement.\nStaff explained the Code Enforcement citation process that would be leveraged upon\nthe property owners and/or the Use Permit holders.\nPresident Kohlstrand summarized the discussion and asked that staff return with\ninformation on which businesses really need the extended hours of operation, and\nwhich can manage without the special accommodations.\nBoard member Cunningham requested that staff return with information which stores\nare out of compliance what their reasons are for non-compliance.\nPage 6 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-04-27", "page": 7, "text": "Board member Lynch requested that staff return to the Planning Board with a legal\ninterpretation that relays which un-permitted truck activities can be considered through\ncode compliance and those under police compliance.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft moved/seconded by Board member McNamara to\ncontinue the item to an unspecified date. Motion passed 7-0.\n9-B. Use Permit - PLN09-0073 - 325 Park Street - Big 5 Sporting Goods. The\napplicant is requesting a use permit allowing deliveries to the store outside the\nhours of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. (LA)\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft moved/seconded by Board member Autorino to continue\nthe item to an unspecified date. Motion passed 7-0.\n9-C. Planned Development Amendment, Major Design Review - PDA05-0004,\nDR05-0073 and Tentative Parcel Map PLN08-0507 - 523 South Shore Center.\nThe applicant requests approval of the following entitlements: 1) A tentative parcel\nmap reconfiguring 4 existing parcels into 6 parcels (This will not result in an\nincrease in the size of the shopping center or in the intensity of use); and 2)\nPlanned Development Amendment and Major Design Review permitting the\ncontinued phased redevelopment of the shopping center. The plans for this project\nhave been amended from earlier proposals that included an expansion to 706,650\nsquare feet of gross leasable area (GLA) and most recently 681,000 square feet\nof GLA. The current proposal includes up to 657,000 square feet of GLA. Current\nplans include redevelopment of the southeast corner (shoreline area) of the site,\nreconstruction of the existing buildings in the northwest corner of the property,\none new 1,700 square foot building adjacent to and west of T.J. Maxx, a\nreduction in parking requirements, new pedestrian, bicycle and transit\nimprovements, and other minor site improvements. (DG).\nStaff presented a powerpoint presentation on the project.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft asked if a bike lane would run along Park Street between\nOtis and Shoreline.\nStaff responded that that was undetermined at this time.\nBoard member Cunningham asked for clarification on the pedestrian pathways\nthroughout the site.\nStaff explained the planning process for widening the pathways throughout the site.\nBoard member Cook asked how the new resolution has incorporated all site and\nproposal specific conditions of approval that have been adopted in the past.\nPage 7 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-04-27", "page": 8, "text": "Staff explained the development process of the new resolution.\nPresident Kohlstrand opened the hearing for public comment.\nP. Curtin, Harsh Investment Legal Counsel, requested a modification to condition # 18\nthat pertains to the widening of the sidewalk along Park Street. She stated that the\ncondition should not be imposed on the applicant, as the burden of proof has not been\nprovided that there is a nexus between the project before the Planning Board and the\ncondition as imposed. She also commented on the request as stated in the project that\nmore square footage be approved than is stated in the submitted master plan. The\nintent is to streamline the development and entitlement process for any future\nexpansion, once the economy has stabilized.\nH. Sellers commented that the staff report and the proposal do not contain sufficient\ninformation to make a decision on this project, as a several information requests by the\nPlanning Board members had not been provided to this date, nor had all conditions\nbeen completed as required in previous resolutions. She requested that the PDA\napproval be put on hold, until all conditions of approval have been satisfied and until the\ncenter is fully occupied and parking analysis is reevaluated.\nK. Bay supports the planned development of the center, provided that the land use of\nthe waterfront be zoned and used for restaurant use only.\nPresident Kohlstrand closed the public comment period.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft asked Mr. Kite, Director Harsch Investment, what the\nanticipated uses are for the area along South Shore Beach waterfront. Mr. Kite\nexplained that the proposed uses would be restaurants.\nBoard member Cook requested that the proposed uses would be included in the\nresolution limiting the buildings 1800 A and B would be dedicated to beach and\nrecreation oriented businesses.\nBoard member Cunningham asked how landscaping, traffic, design layout and building\nsynergy would be impacted should the realigned parcels be sold off in the future.\nMr. Kite explained that the lot line adjustment is largely motivated by the financing\nstrategy that can be implemented once the process is complete.\nStaff clarified that the existing access easements, planned development conditions and\nuse permits would stay with the land and would remain in effect, regardless of\nownership.\nBoard member Cook asked about the landscaping with palm trees along Otis. She also\nasked whether the public and the planning board could still receive a comparison table\nshowing what was approved in 2003 versus what is to be approved in 2009.\nPage 8 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-04-27", "page": 9, "text": "Staff explained that the landscaping as approved in 2003 has been slightly changed by\nexcluding trees in the subsequent site layout.\nPresident Kohlstrand temporarily closed the discussion session to continue to the next\nagenda item 9D.\nPresident Kohlstrand reopened the discussion on how the Planning Board should\naddress the discrepancy between the total square footage in the different submittals.\nThe Planning Board agreed that permitted uses for the waterfront buildings 1800 A&B\nshould be limited to sit-down restaurants and waterfront recreation, and conditionally\npermit other uses, excluding drive-through facilities.\nThe Planning Board agreed that the site design for buildings 1800 A& B needs to be\nwaterfront- and pedestrian-oriented, with a clear connection to the shopping center\nthrough a pedestrian promenade. The design review of any new or rehabilitated\nwaterfront buildings in Phase Il shall be brought to the Planning Board for review.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft moved/ Board member Lynch seconded to continue the\nmeeting and discussion of 9-C past 11:30 pm. Motion passed 7-0.\nThe Planning Board members came to the conclusion that the landscaping and parking\nconfiguration in the center is agreeable.\nThe Planning Board discussed whether the sidewalk along Park Street between\nShoreline Drive and Otis should be widened from three feet to five feet upon Alameda\nTowne Centre. They concluded that the nexus was given between widening the\nsidewalk and the development of the site.\nBoard member Autorino motioned/ Board member Cunningham seconded the motion to\napprove the resolution for the Planned Development Amendment as amended. Motion\npassed 6-1-0.\nBoard member Cook was concerned that the increase in square footage in the center\ndecreased the possibility to include more pedestrian and bike access routes.\nBoard member Cunningham moved/seconded by Vice-President Ezzy Ashcraft to\napprove the Tentative Tract map. Motion passed 7-0.\n9-D. Consideration of a Zoning Overlay District - PLN08-0194 - Limiting the\nSize of Two-Story Residential Buildings - Applicant - City of Alameda. The\nPlanning Board will conduct a hearing to consider proposed limitations on height\nand size of two-story residential buildings and new design standards for\nstructures located within the area shown on the map below. (DG)\nPage 9 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-04-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2009-04-27", "page": 10, "text": "Board member Cunningham moved to continue the item to the following meeting on\nMay 6, 2009/seconded by Board member Lynch. In favor 7-0.\n9-E. Design Review - DR05-0132 for a new single family dwelling - 3295 Adams\nStreet - Applicant - Forrest Reed. The applicant proposed to construct an\napproximately 2,700 square foot, two-story single family dwelling with a 417\nsquare foot attached garage on a vacant, 5,172 square foot lot. (DG)\nBoard member Cunningham moved to continue the item following meeting May 6,\n2009/seconded by Board member Lynch. In favor 7-0.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or\nmake a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, the Board may provide a referral\nto staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body\nat a subsequent meeting concerning a City matter or, through the chair, direct staff to\nplace a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda.\nVice-President Ezzy Ashcraft recommended that the board members review the\nPerforce building along Oak Street.\n12. ADJOURNMENT:\n11:28 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThis meeting was audio and video taped.\nPage 10 of 10", "path": "PlanningBoard/2009-04-27.pdf"}